Reader comments
Equalization for school districts

ancra | 2:08 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

do not go against the will of the people. Quit trying to have everyone else fund there needs. A hood old fashion bond like the Ogden District. This is not kindergarden. You can not have a new districy without spending money. It is not fair to oothers to expect them to pay it for them. A good old Utah tax party at the lake is called for. The whole state should not see changes because of 1 district in SLC.

OMG! | 6:38 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Ridiculous. Capital projects should be funded by impact fees assessed to new residential units. Asking existing residents to pay for facilities new facilities necessitated by population growth is essentially a subsidy for new housing. Income and property taxes should only be used to pay for replacement and improcement of exisiting facilities.

Steven Jarvis | 7:01 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Should have waited till this was resolved before splitting. Now everyone is at the mercy of policy makers who may or may not cause more problems. It is kinda like Humpty Dumpty in that all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 7:29 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

I'm glad my children were educated before this split occurred. It seems those on the East Side don't want to pay for the population growth on the West side that will continue for a long while. Perhaps the Jordan School District was becoming too big, but for awhile we on the West Side could suffer because of lack of programs and buildings here.

anonymous | 8:39 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Equalization is not "fair." It will take millions of dollars away from Salt Lake and Murray school districts and necessitate huge tax increases in those cities. There must be an alternative. I cannot believe that the rapid growth on the west and southwest sides of the county does not provide some legitimate financial compensation for the monetary losses suffered at the hands of district splits. I am waiting for the legislative majority to come up with some good ideas, as opposed to the steady stream of bad ones. I won't hold my breath.

Random | 8:51 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

So let me see if I understand this correctly, the legislature rushed to pass a flawed school district creation bill that sticks citizens who had no vote with a huge financial burden to build new schools. The legislature's plan to fix this flaw is to rush through another law that "equalizes" funding among school districts?

This helps how? | 8:56 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Jordan District says it needs $800 million for new schools on its west side. Granite needs more than $400 million. Alpine and Davis also have needs in the hundreds of millions for growth. The article says the equalization law they are considering would create "a $28.5 million fund" for districts to draw from. I don't really see how this will help the situation.

JotaB | 9:31 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

We will never see impact fees with the money put into the legislature by the Realtors PAC. The needed solution is not some weak equalization scheme that shuffles money between districts. The better solution is to take the growth in income tax revenues generated by the growth, (which is not a surplus), and use it to help Districts out. In addition, districts need to step up and bond for their needs. Growth in construction costs are outpacing the cost of borrowing the money.

I have no faith in the legislature in producing a well thought out bill to address this. Some of the main players involved have other agendas regarding public schools and taxation.

Get Facts Straight 1st | 9:31 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Eastman needs to get his fact straight. The west side has NEVER paid a majority for ANY SCHOOL in the district including every single one of their own. To imply that they're being ripped off somehow is selfishness gone wild.
The tough part about equalization is is will mainly only help the West JSD - they don't seem to care that smaller, poorer districts with no growth will also be paying the bill.
BTW - the remaining JSD will qualify for millions of dollars of state funds for building once the new district is created. No one seems to remember that...too busy crying over misperceived inequities.

Janey | 9:39 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

This makes absolutely no sense. The east-side of this valley is completely saturated - there is no more room to seriously build homes or new schools because they bump into the Wasatch Mtns. Many east-side schools are old and in need of renovation and air-conditioning and technology labs. Many years ago, the few, mostly farming west-side helped build these schools which are now old and delapidated. The west-side is rapidly building expensive homes and broadening their tax base clear to the far away Oquirrh Mtns. The schools they are building are beautiful and high-tech. Going west and south is nearly endless. What is proposed in the equal-fairness thing is that the east be required to pay many, many more times than what the west contributed. Can't Buttars ever come up with an idea that is good and benefits all the people? Thomas Jefferson once said that "the most unequal thing a person can do is try to treat everyone equally." There are way too many variables to consider in this. They should have been addressed before it went to the ballot. But, then the contractors and real-estate legislators have shown their hand again for more crony building permits.

ashley | 10:02 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

sad! i guess

Floyd | 10:32 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Get Fact Straight 1st -
You had better go get the TRUE facts first.

As a person who grew up on the West side in the 60's and 70's. I can tell you that YES the westside residents and companies provided the funding for the east side schools.

Kennecott and Hercules at one time was the largest employers in the State. The people who worked there got paid well (personal Income Tax) Add to that the property tax and income tax of the Corporations was quite the $$$$. The East side was still largely a housing community during this time.

So what happen to all this money from the two largest employers? Most of the money was dished to the East side schools. These eastside schools always got the "best" equipment wheather it was for sports or Drama or even Technology. While at my high school (Westside) we got hand me downs, until finally in my Senior year we got a new auditorium.

Urban Taxpayer | 12:05 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

It's easy - areas with growth, be it in Salt Lake, the south end of the valley, or anywhere else, need to pay for their schools. If people insist on buying in these new sprawl havens, they need to pay extra for new schools. If they would be willing to stay in areas already built-up, then they would be rewarded with lower taxes. By making it more expensive to move to these suburbs, maybe it will help them to understand what a bad choice it is to live in these areas, adding to urban sprawl, traffic, and pollution.

Re Floyd | 12:32 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Floyd, get your facts straight. Kennecott was not taxed by the school district. It was taxed by the State as all such companies are.

The most just way to fund needed capital projects in high growth areas is to impose impact fees. Let those choosing to move there and creating demand for services pay for those services.

Fundamentally we all spend our OWN money differently than we spend OPM (other people's money).

The east side lived through high growth. They did it with tax increases, year round schedules, frequent boundary shifts to maximize use of existing buildings, portable classrooms, etc. They were also frugal in how they built.

The west side is now free to decide how to address their high growth. They should do so in context of knowing they will be paying for their own choices rather than being able to soak either the east side, or the county or State as a whole.

If you can afford to build a $400k home on the west side and fill the garage with toys, you can afford an impact fee or higher property taxes to educate your children. Who is REALLY being selfish?

Random | 12:56 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Sorry Re. Floyd was right, Kennecott was the single largest property taxpayer and therefore the largest contributor, by far, to schools built during the 1950-80 period.

That said, you are correct that Impact Fees would solve many of the new school building funding needs. Too bad it'll never happen with the current crop of legislative leaders.

Re Re Floyd | 1:08 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

You need to get your facts right. The state never collected a penny in property taxes from Kennecott. Property taxes are collected by the counties. In the case of Kennecott their property taxes were primarily collected by Salt Lake County.
All property holders must pay to the school district(s), via a tax and/or a levy, for the property which falls within the school district boundaries. Inasmuch as most of Kennecott's operations fell within Jordan District a HUGE amount of taxes were paid to build eastside schools.

Ahem! | 1:10 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Lot's of people here talking without knowing anything.

To "Re Floyd": Yes, Kennecott pays property tax to the county. That money is used to build schools on the east side. In fact, Kennecott at one time paid 71-percent of the capital funds used for schools.

The money Kennecott pays to the state CANNOT be used for buildings. Income and corporate taxes go to the general fund, which can hire teachers but cannot be used for buildings.

Chuck | 3:03 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

West side still has Kennecot. The East side loses them, so quit complaining.

The West side PEOPLE didn't pay for the schools on the East side. The West side got just as many schools per student as the East side.

Except for what Kennecot gave, which the west will have exclusively, the East paid for what the East side has, both in inconvenience and taxes. They didn't take from the West PEOPLE any more than they did from themselves.

In the end it is the West that will benefit the most from creating an East-side district. Someday they will even admit it.

Kennecott | 3:35 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Kennecott was changed to centerall assessed tax status in the mid-70s. Prior to that they did pay property tax to the JSD. Ahem!'s claim that it was 71% of the total is completely off the mark. Kennecott's gross revenues from that time weren't likely 100% donated to JSD for building schools. Gross revenue at the mine is $722 million (2003) Jordan's Budget (2004) was $530 million.
Do you really think a you can pay $200-$400 million in taxes on $722 in revenue and still make payroll?
In the late 60s the total property tax from the west side (including homes and farms) was ~25% of the total of JSD's budget (source: an old-timer involved with the district and other governments from the 60s onward).

Whoa... | 9:55 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

East, west. West, east... lets call the whole thing off!

Agree | 11:24 a.m. Dec. 11, 2007

Our schooling has never had a good tax support and i think that it would be a wonderful idea to split. i've tried fora very long time to give our students the suppeort it needs and I'm all for the new tax change.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.